On Mon, 2004-04-26 at 10:43, Marc Portier wrote: > Sylvain Wallez wrote: > > Marc Portier wrote: > > > >> Sylvain Wallez wrote: > >>
> > - if we allow "fi:styling" in the definition (which is needed IMO), we > > must still retain the possibility to override it in the template. The > > associated logic on the template side will be much more easy to implement. > > > > didn't think of this yet, > in any case we will need some overriding/merging rules for the > @defines/@extends thing as well, I guess similar ones should apply for > letting template override its definnition on certain fields Just curious: are you planning on doing the "extending" by merging the definitions on the XML level? -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
